Scientific American, a publication I subscribed to when younger and ravenously read in my pursuit of knowledge and information in my younger years, when completely drawn and consumed by the world of science, was one of the main reasons I went to school and studied engineering. Of course, as they began shilling for AGW over a decade ago, publishing one dumb article after another that pushed a political agenda and leftist one government end goal, with consensus, manipulated models, and other such pseudo-science that completely ignored or dismissed relevant information so they could drive the narrative as their proof, I dropped my subscription. I have not regretted that choice, considering the revelations of how corrupt the cult of AGW and those that helped them push their agenda have shown to be, despite the LSM blackout and/or massive attempts at damage control, and I feel vindicated that dropping that subscription was a wise move, since Scientific American has been a willing participant in that campaign of pro-AGW lies.

Governments from more than 90 countries have agreed to establish an independent panel of scientists to assess the very latest research on the state of the planet's fragile ecosystems. The decision, which will create a body akin to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was made in Panama City this weekend, after years of negotiations.

The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) will be responsible for producing international scientific assessments on issues such as ocean acidification and pollination, to help policy-makers to tackle the global loss of biodiversity and degradation of ecosystems.

“I hope that this body will allow biodiversity to be better taken into account in sustainable-development strategies, as the IPCC has for climate change over the past 20 years,” says Irina Bokova, director-general of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), based in Paris.

The themes of the panel's assessments, along with its overall budget, are to be decided at the newly established body's first plenary meeting, which is scheduled for 2013. But the IPBES will begin work immediately on reviewing existing assessments — such as 2005's global Millennium Ecosystem Assessment — to analyze their scope and impact on policy.

No freaking way! Another UN panel populated by a bunch of credentialed marxists and pseudo-marxists hell bent on yet again finding that the answer to some new or old calamity, or series of calamitous events, are caused by man’s use of energy, will soon tell us that the only solution or answer, yet again, lies with a big one world collectivist government, with the power to control access to energy and people’s freedoms through some massive regulation and taxation, while enhancing the power of these elite and the governments they actually shill for. Color me shocked. And if you doubt this is the plan, I point you to this revelation in the Scientific American fluff piece:

Governments will make the final decisions as to which scientists will sit on the panel, but scientific bodies such as DIVERSITAS will be invited to make nominations. Selection procedures have yet to be agreed. “It will be key to have a selection process for nominations based on the highest scientific credentials,” says Larigauderie.

So, the same people that have the most to gain from putting the shills that will declare that without letting governments wield more power and limit people’s access to energy and thus freedom, and have been the big financiers and stakeholders in the AGW cult scam, are now in charge of this project? What could go wrong, or for that matter, be different from what was done to abuse the AGW narrative? We need to save those fragile ecosystems after all!

The problem these shysters had with AGW – that everyone not compromised by the want for their end goal, you know the watermelons that pretended they were concerned about saving Gaia, when what they really wanted was that collectivist expansion of power, clearly saw through – is going to be the same here. The AGW cultists’ argument was destroyed by the fact that temperatures and climate changed. It varied throughout Earths 4.5 billion years of life, long before man and his gas guzzling CO2 producing factories and SUVs came on the scene. There had been warming and warmer times, much warmer I add, both in the immediate and far away past, as there had been cooling and much cooler times. And man had nothing to do with any of that. The sun, the oceans, and a climate system they still lack massive understanding off its inner workings and had been badly modeled, on purpose I add to produce the lies they needed to frighten the rubes, all where ignored, manipulated, or explained away to pretend that this phenomenon was new, caused by man, and could only be stopped by collectivism writ large.

The ecosystem champions will face the same problem. The fact is that Mother Nature is a cruel thing: ecosystems come and go. Adapt or perish is the law of life. There are more extinct species and systems than there are species and systems around now, and that’s not by coincidence. I am not arguing that we should try to preserve some species or ecosystems, but I am going to go bat shit when these morons tell us we need to preserve everything as is, blame man for it all, then tell us the answer to this dilemma is the same crap they wanted when lying about AGW. And have no doubt that no matter how they camouflage it, the end goal remains the same. Here is to hoping this bullshit dies long before it gains any traction, costs us billions, if not trillions, eats up another decade or two of time, while governments everywhere steal more wealth and freedoms under the guise of saving us from ourselves, and harms as many as the AGW lies have. Unfortunately it will not be the last attempt by these shysters to sell their snake oil and I will not be surprised to see Scientific American at the forefront of selling those lies either.

A fresh tranche of private emails exchanged between leading climate scientists throughout the last decade was released online on Tuesday. The unauthorised publication is an apparent attempt to repeat the impact of a similar release of emails on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit in late 2009.

The initial email dump was apparently timed to disrupt the Copenhagen climate talks. It prompted three official inquiries in the UK and two in the US into the working practices of climate scientists. Although these were critical of the scientists’ handling of Freedom of Information Act requests and lack of openness they did not find fault with the climate change science they had produced.

Absolutely brilliant strategy this. Hold back more stuff, let the cultists act the fool, then dump a second round to force them to double down and again dismiss evidence that is inconvenient to their political movement.

The emails appear to be genuine, but the University of East Anglia said the “sheer volume of material” meant it was not yet able to confirm that they were. One of the emailers, the climate scientist Prof Michael Mann, has confirmed that he believes they are his messages. The lack of any emails post-dating the 2009 release suggests that they were obtained at the same time, but held back. Their release now suggests they are intended to cause maximum impact before the upcoming climate summit in Durban which starts on Monday.

The response from the powers that be to these revelations?

Norfolk police have said the new set of emails is “of interest” to their investigation to find the perpetrator of the initial email release who has not yet been identified.

Silence & punish the bastard that has torpedoed their lucrative power grab.

The new emails include similar statements apparently made by the scientists about avoiding requests for information. In one email, which has not yet been specifically confirmed as genuine, Jones writes: “I’ve been told that IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 [the IPCC’s fifth Assessment Report] would be to delete all emails at the end of the process”.

Ask yourself this: if the science was on these cultists’ side, why the need to hide this information? The whole scientific verification process lives & dies on the premise that when you postulate a hypothesis, you provide any and all information, in order to have the skeptics review and try to falsify your experiments, methodology, and claims, so as to then have them confirm your findings. So why the need to not allow others, especially the skeptics, access if what you are doing is all above water? The only one I find, short of national security reasons – and we can outright dismiss that card, if they ever try to use it, since I can not think of any reason or evidence that would compel that need other than this being some kind of nasty conspiracy to grab power – is that they have been playing fast & loose with the data, facts, and predictions, and are afraid this will justifiably discredit them all.

Don’t worry. They will set up another panel and some committees that will contort themselves into pretzels making excuses for why, while this is all wrong, smacks of politically motivated hackery, and is based on a pack of lies, the scientific findings of the AGW cultists still stand and remain relevant, and the faithful can just dismiss the evidence as inconsequential.

In the mean time those of us that pointed out this was all bullshit at least have the satisfaction of watching more and more people wise up to this bullshit and abandon the faith.